RE: Full vs Incremental
- From: "Bobak, Mark" <Mark.Bobak@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:42:45 -0400
Then I agree that doing all FULL backups is just easier and simpler.
-Mark
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Storey, Robert (DCSO)
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:34 PM
To: Niall Litchfield
Cc: oracle-l-freelists
Subject: RE: Full vs Incremental
Nope, no problem with space or time constraints.
From: Niall Litchfield [mailto:niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Storey, Robert (DCSO)
Cc: oracle-l-freelists
Subject: Re: Full vs Incremental
Unless that half hour is hurting or the space is a pain for the backups, I'd do
fulls, much simpler to understand your recovery options. Talking of which,
schedule a few more unusual tests - cloning, PITR, restore to a host with diff
disks and so on. Symantec used to do plain restore/recover really well, but
nothing else well at all.
On 10 Sep 2010 19:22, "Storey, Robert (DCSO)"
<RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:RStorey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
So, my backup person and I were having a discussion. We use symatnec's software
to do the backup of our oracle database. It in turn is issuing the rman scripts.
Our database is about medium size, probably about 100gig. The full backup
takes about 35 minutes.
We are doing fulls every night. We used to do traditional hot backups, but
changed to rman and using fulls.
So, do I keep doing fulls every night, or do I shift to schedule of full's with
incremental in between? Are there pro's or cons' to either setup?
Thanks
Other related posts:
